What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5497478 about?

The tribunal order states: terminating the tenancy without reason.

How much money was awarded in case 5497478?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5497478?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5497478?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13652570-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5497478 about?

The tribunal order states: terminating the tenancy without reason.

How much money was awarded in case 5497478?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5497478?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5497478?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13652570-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 3, 629 Worcester Street, Linwood, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5497478 — Exemplary damages

Order

terminating the tenancy without reason.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy commenced on 20 October 2023 and has continued to the present without any apparent issues. The tenants say that they are good tenants, and the landlords accept that they are good tenants.
On 8 April 2026, pursuant to section 47, the landlord, through the property manager acting on behalf of the owner, notified the applicant that the property was being placed on the market.
Between 8 April and 30 April 2026, there were several communications between the applicant and a Ray White sales agent, who was not connected with the property management function of Ray White, the respondent in this proceeding, regarding arrangements for viewings of the property. The applicant wished to be present during viewings and engaged with the process in good faith.
However, it is clear from the communications that the level of flexibility and responsiveness the sales agent considered necessary for marketing the property was not likely to be practical while the property remained tenanted. A 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy was therefore issued on 30 April 2026.
The applicant submits that the 90-day notice was retaliatory and seeks orders from the Tribunal declaring it retaliatory, and of no effect and requests an award of exemplary damages.
Section 54 provides that where a landlord gives a notice terminating a tenancy that complies with the requirements of section 51, a tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring the notice retaliatory on the grounds that the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise, or proposed exercise, by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement, the Act, or any other enactment, or by any complaint made by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
If the Tribunal is satisfied that either or both of the grounds in section 54(2) apply, the Tribunal must declare the notice to be retaliatory and of no effect, provided the tenant made the application within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice.
I am satisfied that the landlord gave a notice that complies with the technical requirements of section 51.
Section 48(3)(b) provides that a landlord may, with the prior consent of the tenant, enter the property at reasonable times to show the premises to prospective purchasers.
I am also satisfied that the tenant’s assertion of that right to negotiate reasonable times for viewings led the landlord to conclude that marketing the property to prospective purchasers in the current market would be more expedient and practical if the property were vacant. That conclusion motivated the issuance of the 90-day notice.
Accordingly, the notice meets the criteria under section 54 and must be declared retaliatory and of no effect. This conclusion arises because the statutory criteria, strictly applied to the circumstances of this case, require that outcome.
A landlord is nevertheless entitled to issue a 90-day notice without reason and this is the clear intent of parliament. Accordingly, the landlord may issue a further 90-day notice going forward.
Section 109(3) provides that, where the Tribunal is satisfied that a person committed an unlawful act intentionally, and having regard to the intention of that person, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the affected landlord or tenant, and the public interest, it would be just to do so, the Tribunal may order the payment of exemplary damages.
I am not satisfied that the landlord intentionally committed the unlawful act. Rather, the landlord clumsily went back and forth during April while attempting to manage the practicalities associated with marketing the property while tenanted. To the landlord’s credit, the tenants were offered what was described as an identical property within the same complex at the same rent, and the landlord considers the tenants to be excellent tenants. All of this suggest a lack of intent.
In considering the effect of the unlawful act, the practical consequence of this application has been that the notice has been declared retaliatory and of no effect, with the result that the tenants have obtained the benefit of remaining in the tenancy for a longer period. The tenant also acknowledged that, had the same notice been issued one month earlier for the same reason, it would likely have been effective. The present outcome therefore arises from the application of the statutory criteria to the particular timing and circumstances of the notice.
Having regard to the landlord’s intentions, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the parties, and the limited public interest engaged in a decision of this nature, I am not satisfied that the threshold for an award of exemplary damages is met. No award of exemplary damages can therefore be made.
The tenant has therefore only been partially successful in this application. In those circumstances, I do not consider that an award of the filing fee or an order for suppression is warranted.

Order

terminating the tenancy without reason.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy commenced on 20 October 2023 and has continued to the present without any apparent issues. The tenants say that they are good tenants, and the landlords accept that they are good tenants.
On 8 April 2026, pursuant to section 47, the landlord, through the property manager acting on behalf of the owner, notified the applicant that the property was being placed on the market.
Between 8 April and 30 April 2026, there were several communications between the applicant and a Ray White sales agent, who was not connected with the property management function of Ray White, the respondent in this proceeding, regarding arrangements for viewings of the property. The applicant wished to be present during viewings and engaged with the process in good faith.
However, it is clear from the communications that the level of flexibility and responsiveness the sales agent considered necessary for marketing the property was not likely to be practical while the property remained tenanted. A 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy was therefore issued on 30 April 2026.
The applicant submits that the 90-day notice was retaliatory and seeks orders from the Tribunal declaring it retaliatory, and of no effect and requests an award of exemplary damages.
Section 54 provides that where a landlord gives a notice terminating a tenancy that complies with the requirements of section 51, a tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring the notice retaliatory on the grounds that the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise, or proposed exercise, by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement, the Act, or any other enactment, or by any complaint made by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
If the Tribunal is satisfied that either or both of the grounds in section 54(2) apply, the Tribunal must declare the notice to be retaliatory and of no effect, provided the tenant made the application within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice.
I am satisfied that the landlord gave a notice that complies with the technical requirements of section 51.
Section 48(3)(b) provides that a landlord may, with the prior consent of the tenant, enter the property at reasonable times to show the premises to prospective purchasers.
I am also satisfied that the tenant’s assertion of that right to negotiate reasonable times for viewings led the landlord to conclude that marketing the property to prospective purchasers in the current market would be more expedient and practical if the property were vacant. That conclusion motivated the issuance of the 90-day notice.
Accordingly, the notice meets the criteria under section 54 and must be declared retaliatory and of no effect. This conclusion arises because the statutory criteria, strictly applied to the circumstances of this case, require that outcome.
A landlord is nevertheless entitled to issue a 90-day notice without reason and this is the clear intent of parliament. Accordingly, the landlord may issue a further 90-day notice going forward.
Section 109(3) provides that, where the Tribunal is satisfied that a person committed an unlawful act intentionally, and having regard to the intention of that person, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the affected landlord or tenant, and the public interest, it would be just to do so, the Tribunal may order the payment of exemplary damages.
I am not satisfied that the landlord intentionally committed the unlawful act. Rather, the landlord clumsily went back and forth during April while attempting to manage the practicalities associated with marketing the property while tenanted. To the landlord’s credit, the tenants were offered what was described as an identical property within the same complex at the same rent, and the landlord considers the tenants to be excellent tenants. All of this suggest a lack of intent.
In considering the effect of the unlawful act, the practical consequence of this application has been that the notice has been declared retaliatory and of no effect, with the result that the tenants have obtained the benefit of remaining in the tenancy for a longer period. The tenant also acknowledged that, had the same notice been issued one month earlier for the same reason, it would likely have been effective. The present outcome therefore arises from the application of the statutory criteria to the particular timing and circumstances of the notice.
Having regard to the landlord’s intentions, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the parties, and the limited public interest engaged in a decision of this nature, I am not satisfied that the threshold for an award of exemplary damages is met. No award of exemplary damages can therefore be made.
The tenant has therefore only been partially successful in this application. In those circumstances, I do not consider that an award of the filing fee or an order for suppression is warranted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5497478 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 629 Worcester Street, Linwood,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5497478 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 629 Worcester Street, Linwood,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions